Karnataka HC Upholds Conviction Of Truck Driver Who Fled Fatal Crash, Cuts 304-A Jail Term From 2 Years To 1ેણ

On 14 July 2016, a lorry driven by the accused collided with a motorcycle on the Hiremagalur–Chikkamagaluru road.

The motorcycle rider sustained grievous injuries, and the pillion rider died at the scene.

The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), and the appellate court affirmed the conviction.

In revision, the accused challenged, among other matters, his identification as the driver.

The Court applied Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), which confer revisional jurisdiction, and held that such jurisdiction permits interference where the lower court’s decision is perverse, grossly erroneous, unreasonable, unsupported by material, based on irrelevant material, or reflects arbitrary or capricious discretion.

The offences of rash or negligent driving causing hurt or death were considered under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A IPC; Section 187 of the MV Act concerns failure to perform the duties arising from an accident.

On sentencing, the Court relied on State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi, (2015) 5 SCC 182, and the principles that road-safety offences causing death call for proportionate punishment, with the impact on victims and society taken into account.

The Court found the driver’s identity established by the eyewitness evidence of PWs 1 and 7 and by the lorry owner’s evidence and reply to the statutory notice identifying the accused as the driver.

The spot panchnama and sketch, considered with the eyewitness testimony, supported the finding that the lorry came onto the motorcycle’s side of the road and caused the collision, establishing rashness and negligence.

The concurrent findings were therefore supported by material evidence and did not meet the threshold for revisional interference.

As to sentence, the Court considered the fatality and grievous injury, but concluded that the two-year term under Section 304-A IPC should be reduced to one year, relying on the sentencing principles discussed in Saurabh Bakshi.

The revision petition was allowed in part.

The conviction and fines were left undisturbed, but the sentence of imprisonment under Section 304-A IPC was reduced from two years to one year; the substantive sentences were to run concurrently.

The petitioner was directed to surrender, and set-off was allowed for the period already undergone.